agfl 



Ma 



j^wtwtha^ 



AaAA 'a 






;^aa^ 



SAa^ 



&w#^$ 


(A* a a* *2 


^% 




lAAiMli 





{LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.'} 

[FORCE COLLECTION. 



^/'ZEdXi/j-t I 



I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. < 



BtS^ftftc 



»n : 






- A A'. ' «~ 



w*wV 



> a o ^ -v ' 

Jfs.r A - "Vy 



Wff^fipto 









iV 



■ » 
a rs ^ Ss /* 



A*' 



fi$M$ 



WW 



m tW 



- - . riR** 



9a«^! " ^ a ^ . 



mm 



mmm 









LETTER 

i 

w TO THE 

MODERATOR 

OF THE 

\E\V-HAMPSHIRE ASSOCIATION. 



BY TIMOTHY. 



Mistake me not, I do not slight orthodoxy, nor jeer at the name ; btM: 

onl) disclose the pretences of diabolical zeal in pious, or seemingly pious 

The slanders oi some of these, and the bitter, opprobrious speeches 

ot others, have more effectua% done the devil's service under the name of 

orthodoxy and zeal for truth, than the malignant scorwers of godliness. 

BiXTEK. 



BOST0N: 
POINTED BY WATSQK U BANGI. 

18U*. JT 



"£> 






LETTER. 



Hev. Sir, 

YOU are probably not insensible, that men of 
reputation, for discernment, orthodoxy and piety have 
expressed great concern that the General Association 
lately formed, would prove productive of great evil 
to the churches ; that they would become instead of 
a Pope, to lord it over the rights of conscience, to the 
discouragemqit of free inquiry and to the wound- 
ing of the cause of truth and christian fellowship, by 
d - ling out premature and unjust anathemas against 
supposed error. Men of wisdom had so much ex- 
pressed their fears to this point, that it was hardly to 
be expected the N. H. Association, in a meeting of 
he members, besides eight from abroad, would 
so soon go all the length, as in the address you sign- 
ed at Dunbarton last September. Without going 
such a distance, as many ministers, of perhaps equal 
weight of character and equal concern for the souls 
of their fellow men, might have met, and very con- 
scientiously pronounced the address, one -of the most 
erronc ous and misleading publications they had seen ; 
and might have honestly referred to the same scrip- 
tures to which you refer and to many more for their 
support. And what would this prove ? Nothing so 
clearly as the evil tendency of all votes, addresses 
and results of associations to establish any poir^ of 



doctrine. Thus originated the amazing errors, the 
dreadful superstitions and horrid persecutions in the 
dark ages of the church. 

But, sir, after all, what is the great thing about 
which so many solemn and affectionate expressions 
are used, with the most censorious implications 
against all, who in any manner dissent from the ad- 
dress ? Is it any thing more than mere language of 
controversy, mere words of human invention, and 
scholastic divinity ? You will say, a great article of 
faith, a fundamental doctrine of the bible is contend- 
ed for. But, sir, do those against whom the address 
was pointed, deny that great article, that "funda- 
mental" doctrine, any otherwise thanks we dissent 
from language of human invention ? Do not our 
writings shew that we believe in the Father, in the 
Son, and in the Holy Spirit; and that concerning each 
we receive, or, at least, we mean to receive, the 
whole of Scripture testimony in its most unq&alified 
sense, and most uniform agreement ? What then is 
the ground on which we are implicitly charged with 
" damnable heresies ?? Is it not, sir, simply this, 
that we prefer the clear, intelligible, edifying lan- 
guage of inspiration, to the dark mysterious language 
" invented" through the controversies of the fourth 
century ? Will it not be found, on the most thor- 
ough inquiry ; will not the light of eternity shew 
the solemn fact, that we have only departed from 
such dark, confused language as is not found in the 
bible ; such words and forms as were never known 
in the church until the fourth century, when " fac- 
tion was high and charity was low,"* and that for 

* Miiaer's Church History, Vol. II. p. 185. 



({lis we ate intentionally denounced as heretics, 
igainst whom the churches arc warned in the most 






pathetic manner ? Is it possible for you, or aiitf 
other man to get rid of this tact, by fairly she™ 
ing the contrary ? Although from the most un- 
righteous, terrifying insinuations of the address, 
one would suppose that we deny the divine nature 
and dignity of the Son of God, and his gracious 
and infinitely meritorious mediation between God 
and man ; and that we deny the Holy Spirit of 
God as given through his Son, to renew r , sanctify 
and comfort the heirs of salvation. But our writ- 
ings are our witness before the public that we are 
chargeable with no such error. Yes, sir, and our 
writings shew that our views of Q od, his Son, and 
his Spirit, are in perfect agreement with the views of 
the fathers of the first centuries. In almost their 
own words, we had expressed our own views, before 
their language had ever come to our knowledge* 
The very language of Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Ire- 
naeus, and others of those early times, is such, as we 
honestly use without any qualification or reserve, to 
express our own sentiments. Irenreus says that 
" the church dispersed through the whole world" in 
his day, about A. D, 130, believed " in one God 
the Father Almighty, the Maker of the heavens, the 
earth and the sea ; in one Jesus Christ his Son, made 
flesh for our salvation, and in the Holy Spirit. "* 
In this very language our sentiments were before 
the public when the address was voted. And how 
did the Association know, or who authorized them to 
judge that we do not mean as much, and the very 

t View of Her. p. 7», 



same, by such language as Irerueus and others 
of his time did. In respect to the divine Sonship, 
cft|ine nature, fulness, and dignity of Christ, we I 
admitted and pleaded for the plain unqualified sense 
of inspired language. We have also quoted, with 
approbation the language of the celebrated council 
of Nice, A, D. 325, and had published accordi 
more ihan a year before the meeting of the Associa- 
tion. 

We have in the most explicit manner, in our 
publications, expressed^ur belief in God, his Son. 
and his Spirit as of one divine nature, in most per^ 
feet agreement with the language of Calvin in his 
Institutes, where, speaking of Christ, he says, "He 
is of the Father, his essence is without beginning, 
but the beginning of his Person is God himself," p. 
57. What then could be our heresy, about which 
such solemn parade w r as made by an Association 
professing the highest veneration for the name and 
sentiments of Calvin ? From the facts brought to 
view, is not the conclusion unavoidable that the here- 
sy, which the Association were pleased to terra 
"damnable" consists simply in a return from the 
"invented" language of controversy, to the plain 
language of the bible, and of the primitive church, 
which we view as infinitely more honorable to our 
blessed Savior, and unspeakably more expressive of 
divine grace in our salvation ? We cannot in con- 
science subscribe triune articles of faith, or use triune 
forms of worship- in the language which men have 
"invented" because it appears to its very confound- 
ing to the most precious truth, and exceedingly 
tiarring to "the glory of the gospel." Is not this the 



? And vvh it 

hold, than to 1. >', hum 

"words of man's wisdom/ 1 w<* 

known to all the saints until more than three hun- 
years alter Christ ; words which \v 

ty of votes, in the "confused'* :il of 

Constantinople, A. D. 381 ;* words which Calvin 
speaks of as "invented" in a time pf controversy, to 

it grief of many in those days ; and v 
respect to which Calvin himself says, "I would to 
God that the} were buried indeed 1" p. 43. Speak- 
ing of Hilar)', Calvin also says, "He excuseth him- 
self with many words, for that he was so bold to utter 
new names, for after he had used the natural names, 
Father, Son and Holy Spirit, he addeth, whatsoever 
is sought further, is beyond the reach of sense, be- 

* If we may rely on what Calvin, •Mosheim, Saurin, Jllilner and others 
sav about the "new" "invented" triune language, which was * t fixed,'" > A, 
P. 381, then one of these two things must be true ; either that the*council 
of Constantinople did materially depart from christian simplicity on the 
great point in r|iiestion, or the truth on this point had never been well 
Le b> st manner stated before. Let this be duly weighed by 
frpposc it incredible, that the doctrine contended for in the 
should not be correct, because it has been so long^nd so generally re- 
1 by learned Divines. From the beginning of the world to the 

time when "the doctrine" was so "fixed" was about four thousand three hun- 
dred ei , a period more than three times as long as the time 
About two thirds of the last much shorter period, almost the whole 
» in world was enveloped in Popish darkness, adhering to many super- 
stitions and inventions, which Protestants have found to be exceedingly 
ry to the simplicity which is in Christ. On the other hand within 
the kmg foi iod, lived all the Protestants, Moses, and the Proph- 
nd all the inspired writers, and those with whom 
Inspired men were conversant. 

Now thviu, aside from every other consideration, is it so incredible 

confused and disorderly" Council of Constantinople, did 

froi i 'he simplicity of divine testimony, and that in this 

been followed by Divines in general ever since, as it is to 

suppose that a most important point of doctrine was never well known, 

manner stated. vil who had spoken and written £»9 

thty were moved by the Holy Spirit" Before that time. 

I 



yond the comp\ss of speech, and beyond the capaci- 
ty of uiKKxstanding." 

Then, after speaking of what had been said in like 
manner by Augustine, Calvin adds, "This modesty 
of the holy man ought to warn us that we do not so 
severely, like censors, brand those with infamy who 
cannot subscribe anc swear to* such words as we 
propound them." p. 44. The words we had in view 
are the very words so much insisted on in the ad- 
dress, and there used with as much assurance as 
though the bible were full of them. In respect to 
the same words, the celebrated Saurin candidly al- 
lows, that the fathers of the first centuries would 
have deemed them heretical ! 

Now, sir, let the address be fairly compared with 
the sentiments which we have published with due 
examination of the differer . theories, and will it not 
be found that a mere fevm of "invented words," 
which no man will profess to understand, is the 
amount of all which is so solemnly inculcated by the 
address, beyond what w r e hold dearer than life ? And 
in respect to this favorite form of words, can you 
be ignorant, tjjat those who hold them so sacred ar^ 
exceedingly diverse, in the explanations given of 
their meaning and import ? It is doubted whether 
any five of the twenty who voted the address, if sep- 
arately inquired of, would be found agreed in any 
meaning of the words as there used. If the Associa- 
tion had gone into an inquiry concerning what each 
member means by such words, and had suspended 
their address until all were agreed in some definite 
meaning which they would be willing to state to the 
public, it is presumed, it would never have been se«i 



9 

in print. Was it, sir, an object worthy of that body 
t up the dark, equivocal, undefined language 

roversy, as the aW % to the chun 

rt, to insinuate, so 

contrary to the whole tenor of our publications, that 
deny "the God o{' the bible ;" that we denjjyflfce 
divinity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit ; that we 
make daring* inquiries about "secret things ;" that 
we take away the "foundation" of the christian's 
"hope ;" that we set aside "the glory of the gospel ;" 
and take the believer's "God, aid" SAVIOR, and 
COMFORTER" away? Does a conscientious dis- 
, from a form of words which no man can un- 
rand, involve all this ? Does a good cause ever 
require the aid of such frightful, groundless, inju- 
5 insinuations ? According to the representations 
the address, compared with abundant credible 
testimony, wh^t, sir, was the situation of the primi- 
ehureh ? According to the united testimony of 
try, Augustine, Calvin, Mosheim, Saurin, and 
re ali cottnted on your side in point of 
orthodoxy, ali the saints under the old Testament 
s and martyrs, and other chris- 

j three first centuries of the christian era, 
lived and died without using any triune article of 
faith, any triune doxclogy, or any such triune lan- 
st£ is made so "fundamental" in the address. 



* Ts it not perfectly incredible that a doctrine wliicn is <{ the glorv of the 
ill in a//," to "th humbli believer,' should not h ted in 

? When et 

v any 
do< i ' not plainly 

lit the understandings 
u their Uuuds .' 



10 

Now, sir, was "baptism" to all the primitive chris- 
tians without meaning ? Without use ? Had they 
no "foundation' 7 for christian "hope ?" Was "the 
glory of the gospel" hid from them all ? Had they 
no such "GOD," no such "SAVIOR," no such 
JMFORTER" as true christians have now ? I 
suppose you would say, that admitting Milner is cor- 
rect in saying "Florian" of the fourth century "was 
the first who invented the doxology, glory be to the 
Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost,"* admitting 
triune wqfds and worship had not been known be- 
fore, yet the primitive christians held in essence the 
same doctrine for whicii you now contend. But 
what evidence have you of this in regard to them, 
you have not in regard to us ? As they did, do not 
we hold most sacred every article of faith as we find 
it in the precious volume of revelation ? Inquiring 
about no secret things, we regard the holy scriptures 
as our standard, excluding all the w r ords of man's 
wisdom, and conscientiously hold fast every senti- 
ment which we can learn by searching, and compar- 
ing scripture with scripture. And we find no lan- 
guage in which we can more honestly, and unre- 
servedly express our own sentiments, than the very 
language of the ancient fathers, as given by eminent 
writers whom you claim as of the same triune ortho- 
doxy as the Association. 

If then you view the ancient fathers, whose lan- 
guage we most heartily adopt, as having been ortho- 
dox in the essence of your favorite point, where is 
your ground to cry heresy against us ? Those 
fathers undoubtedly thought they saw 1 >v in 

f Milner's Hist, of the Church, Vol, II. p. ! 



11 

the scriptures, meaning in baptisms, and glory in 
the gospel. We think the same. Yea, to the praise 
of the divine grace we would say it, we think we 
have found such meaning in baptism, such harmony 
in the scriptures, and such glory in the gospel, as 
has been greatly obscured for ages, by "words of 
man's wisdom," by that mysterious language of con- 
troversy, which the address so much sets up as the 
"all in alP of religion. And who has authorised 
you or any others to call in question our sincerity, 
or to charge us with vain presumptuous specula- 
tions ; or to denounce the sentiments we express in 
in the plain, unqualified language of inspiration, as 
"damnable heresies ?" How often was the same lan- 
guage used in the terrible denunciations against Lu- 
ther, Calvin, Zuingle, Melancthon, and others, with- 
out whose independent exertions, we might have 
been now enveloped in all the darkness of Popery ! , 
Such reproaches are of a nature grievous to be borne ; 
especially when they come from such as we have 
been habituated to rerere and love as fathers and 
brethren. 

But, sir, our opinions are the result of too much 
serious, prayerful and thorough inquiry, and are 
rested too exclusively on divine testimony to be 
shaken by any such terrific denunciations ! Judg- 
ing from much careful examination of the subject, 
and from daily observation respecting the manner ia 
which our writings are treated, we are settled in the 
opinion, that the only way for any man to remain on 
the common ground, in respect to the great point of 
popular orthodoxy, is to yield to the prepossessions, 



12 



interests and fears which oppose any departure from 
it, so as to make no thorough impartial examinational 



concerning it. 



The God of all grace forgive what the Association 
thought to do against us, and prevent the evil which 
the address might otherwise produce. 

Yours with due respect, 

TIMOTHY. 

^ P. S. Rarely, if ever, have we seen what appeared to us a 
higher manifestation of a sectarian spirit than is found in the 
address. Is it not usual for the most enthusiastic, schismatic, 
and erroneous sectarians, to make high professions of the most 
benevolent concern, for those to whom they volunteer their ser- 
vices ? Do they not usually treat their peculiar sentiments as the 
"all in air of religion ? Do they not usually make a great show 
of reliance on scripture., while very little, jf any is quoted fairly 
to their purpose ? Do they not usually rely on detached parts of 
the bible, without any due regard to the analogy of things, and 
the agreement of all scripture ? Do they not usually pass confi- 
dent as?ertie, i oag arguments ? Do they not usually keep 
the most weighty objections and arguments against them, as much 
as possible out of sight ? Do they not usually repeat with the 
more zeal such arguments as have been shewn to be fallacious ? 
Do they not usually become the more confident, zealous and cen- 
sorious, the more clearly their errors are pointed out ? Do they 
not usually become exceedingly bitter against auoh as most clear- 
ly and fairly expose their errors, however amiable their charac- 
ter ? Do they not often make the most groundless and injurious 
insinuations against such as they would fear to accuse in any di- 
rect explicit manner ? D.j .hey not usually avoi^jneetiug their op- 
ponents fa any fair r>en, nanly way ? And do they not usually 
endeavor to work \ p i\ pa^ffljs of their admirers to the highest 
veneration for their own pecuKar- tenets, and to the greatest aver- 
sion to every th5ng in opposition to them ?* All the?e thirds are, 
at least, to some minds, very strikingly manifest in the address, 

# * Ts It not, to wise observers, characterise of tlxe most erroneous Secta- 
rung lo rely on a certain round Oi specious arguments, regardless of what- 



13 

Tt is not, mt. in my heart to insinuate that your "aural char- 

I ill a of the brethren who voted the addict^ i> ol such 

But it is thought worth) of very serious c-onsid- 

hetheryou, and they, moved with great zeal, to cuppert 

Hilar, idolized error, have not, in an hign degree, fallen into 
the verj Bamc spirit and manner, which in others who propagate 
i 1 > perceive and very justly disapprove. Certain 
the spirit and manner of the address are such, that it 
appears to have already done much, to confirm an able, reflect- 
ing Brother in the ministry, in the opinion, that the causes it was 
intended to support, is not good.. In one particular, other secta- 
rian^ in general have the advantage. They find some detached 
ieripture language in which to express their favorite opinions, 
and are not so entirely dependant on "invented" "words of man's 
wisdom," or so driven to add to what is written ! 

Who can point to any argument ever used by wise men, which 
is more fallacious than that which is the great pillar of the ad- 
dress ? What is more common than such elliptical sentences as the 
baptizing text ? W T e speak of the laws of God, and of man, mean- 
ing the la?vs of God, and the laws of men. We speak of the pres- 
ence of God, and of angels, and of men, meaning the presence of 
God, the presence of angels, and the presence of men. In any prop- 
er case it would be equall/^proper to say, in the name of God, 
and of angels, and of nfen, meaning in the name of God, in the 



ever is said to show their fallacy, and never fairly meeting the arguments 
which support the truth against them ? On the contrary is it not character- 
istic of those who have truth on their side, to offer strong reasons for their 
opinions, at the same time pointing out the fallacy of the most specious 
arguments which go to the support of error ? 

In our publications we have given what we consider strong scripture 
reasons for our sentiments, and, as we think, have faiyty shewn material 
defect in the arguments which have long supported contrary opinions. But 
where is the manly attempt to show any fallacy in any arguments on which 
we rely ? Or where is the manly reply in defence of arguments which we have 
considered fallacious ' Where is any thing directed against us, in any other 
manner, than in that which is characteristic of a bad cause ? If our opponents 
have the truth on their side, they certainly can do more than repeat the 
arguments we have considered defective. Yes, if the truth is with them, 
ran shew material defect in our arguments, and can make it appear 
that their own are not so defective as we have supposed. And until they 
fairly do 'his, is not all their cry of heresy, with bare repetition of arguments 
which we consider refuted, premature, and highly evidential that theft; 
sauae n desperate ? 

2 



14 

name of angels, and in the name of men. Suppose we were to 
re id oi baptizing into the name of Peter, and of James, and of 
Joh/ij as to * lie language where would be the impropriety ? And 
what would be the *ense ? Or suppose we were io read of baptiz- 
in into the name of "the Spirit/' and of "the water," and of "the 
blood/' would there be any thing improper in the language, and 
•woiud 'sep irate subsistences" be any more evidentlyexpressed 
than in the baptizing phraseology ? 

Elijah said to the false prophets, "call ye on the name of your 
gods." Are we to understand that those "gods many" were not 
"separate Beings, or subsistences" because the word "name" is in 
the si gular number ? Concerning the sons of Joseph, Israel said, 
*Iet my name be named upon them, and the name of my fathers 
Abraham and Isaac." Now, sir, why does not the "single name" 
in this case as much prove that Abraham and Isaac were not 
"separate beings, or subsistences" as the "single name" in the 
baptizing text proves the same tiring in respect to God and His 
Son ? Really, sir, must not a time come when great and gocd 
men will be astonished with the fallacy of arguments on which 
they have relied with great assurance, through the blinding na- 
ture of prepossessions and sectarian interests'? Much as the As- 
sociation have expressed their confidence in the orthodoxy of 
the churches addressed, it is seriously believed, that if the mem- 
bers of those churches were all fairly fcamined one by one, there 
would ns t be found more than one in five, who has not learned 
from his bible to view God and his Son as "separate beings?* 
notwithstanding all the darkening language of controversy by 
which they have been told otherwise, not perceiving what their 
teachers have really meant by such mysterious words. 

Every man well acquainted with the bible knows, that by far the 
greater part of scripture language, in respect to the Holy Spirit, 
is of this imoei,«onal kind, "The Spirit of God" "My Spirit," 
i; Thv Spirit," "His Spirit," "poured out," "shed forth," "cbme 
unon," tilled with," "residue of" "baptized with;' anointed with," 
written with," "tne Spirit itself," and the like. Now who can 
shew one instance of any such language, applied in the same 
manner, to the Father, or to the Son, or to any other proper 
Person ? But on the other hand, while the Spirit is in some in- 
stances, strongly personified, the same is true in respect to the 
ivind, th£ er^t h . the sea. and many ct^er things. Hence ia be* 
fieving as you do, concerning the Spirit; do you not entirely 6 



part from th€ common n o» oi from all analogy, and 

Lire with scripture ? 1! j pin 

Jar opinion concerning correct, u hat reason can 

be given, whj all thr language of the bible is not as uniformly 

// in respect to the Spirit, as it is in regard to tlic Father 

and the Son, and every oth 

Amidst ail the reproach s cast upon us, "Ouf rejoicing is this, 

ionv o\ our conscience, that in simplicity, and godly 

cerity, not uidi fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we 

had our conversation in the world." 
IC7" Since the In rejoins; was prepared for the press, the 
author has seen an able work, written witli great evidence oi* 
honest assiduous inquiry, in which some account is given of no 
han twenty -four ecclesiastical councils, before the close of 
the fourth centuiy, all having so«e respect to the matter of 
controversy, between Arius and Athanasius, or to the conduct of 
those men. Before their time, there was, A. D. 270, a great 
council at Antioch, which acted expressly against what each 
of those men afterwards contended for. The other twenty- 
three councils were all, or nearly all, while Athanasius was 
thing. And it appears that the proceedings of five of those 
eouneils were more or less favorable to him, or to the cause 
which he espoused ; that the proceedings of eight were against 
him. and in support of the Arians or Semi-Arians ; and that 

S:ie other ten councils avoided any division to set up, or put 
own one party or the other, otherwise than by expressly, or im- 
pliedly disapproving any philosophic departure from bible sim- 
fiicity in respect to the most high God, his Son, and his Spirit, 
t also appears, that from a sentence of a council of Bishops, * 
by which he was deposed, and which was confirmed by the. 
Emperor Const ant ins, Athanasius appealed to Julius Bishop 
of Rome : and that this extraordinary, antichristian appeal 
operated finally to turn the scale in his favor, and in favor of 
new doctrine of the Trinity, so that it grew with the* 
growth, and was established with the establishment of Popery. 
See "an attempt to explain the words reason, person sub- 
stance/' &c. by a Presbyter of the church of England. Some 
extracts from which may soon be offered to the public. 









'AnAAA 



MW^<kz&^ 



^^m 



m& 



* 4 



\aMAM 



V\AA 



II lfSP| KS' TV ' 1A ^ ^ I \f V ' A A a ^ A 



^teiU-i» 



N t A * t 



AAlft** 



„AAaa 



'S : : - 



^TOMrwMfli! 






Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2006 

PreservationTechnologies I 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION | 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724) 779-21 1 1 



/AW 



iM®$ 






£ '* * ' 



Ml 



AA&$i 



MI 









mAiicm 



mM 



.,- 



v a ^ r> ^ . 



Mttewm* 



JSbl l3m 









AAA. 



